Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol
So just to be clear
If a team had a superstar player who was only good in 4 of the 5 tools, say, they were very slow, and another player who was good in all the tools, but obviously inferior to the 4-tool player, the superstar would be the best player and the other player would be the best all-around player?
|
No, I would say, subjectively (i.e., without extensive statistical analysis), that the best all-around player
is the best [position] player. (Again, not including pitchers.)
Yet, interestingly, when I looked up the definition of "position player," I found this, causing me to change my viewpoint slightly:
In baseball, a position player is a player who on defense plays as an infielder, outfielder, or catcher. This is generally all players on a team except for the pitcher, who is considered separate from the position players; in the American League, there is also a designated hitter, who bats but does not play any defensive positions.
So here, chew on this: I had forgotten about the DH but now I claim:
1) While pitchers are judged with a different set of parameters, they contribute only defensively. Offensively, they are liabilities or rendered null by the DH rule.
2) Players who are predominantly DHs (you choose what "predominantly" means) cannot be the best players on their teams either. They lack the means to prove themselves defensively and therefore are not all-around players.
The best players on baseball teams are usually the ones that make the highest contribution all-around: offense and defense. This does not mean that a pitcher or a DH cannot be considered the MVP if he has a spectacular season that makes up for his one-sided contribution, especially if no position player has distinguished himself as an all-around player.
But LeMahieu has, in my opinion. That is my assertion. What is your say?